View from the other side of the pond

Feedback from a Dutch writer, with permission. Do you think Wiskerke is correct?

Dear Warren Throckmorton,

I’ve read your article ‘Why Do I Have These Feelings’ on the internet. As an European Christian (Dutch), rather conservative, I can identify with your vision on the origins of homosexuality. I have written ‘as an European Christian’, because I’ve got the impression that American evangelicals in general emphasize over and over again that homosexuality is not a congenital orientation, as if they need that to defend that homosexual relations are wrong. In my observation (which is limited) American evangelicals are quite militant in this, with the Ted Haggard story as one of the results: he had (and has) to deny that he has an homosexual orientation, although that may be the case (but who am I to decide that), with the risk to create a virtual image of himself and the obligation to live by that image.

Am I right that your vision on the origins of homosexuality is rare amongst American evangelicals? In the Netherlands, even conservative Christians who don’t condone homosexual relationships are not afraid to see homosexuality as an orientation that has a complex origin, and probably has a congenital dimension. There are church members/elders/pastors who can say that they have a homosexual orientation, and that they expect to live with that their whole life, but they choose to abandon homosexual relationships. Is my conception right that this approach is not very known among American evangelicals?

With regards,

C. Wiskerke,

Writer

5 thoughts on “View from the other side of the pond”

  1. I think much of the compulsion to insist that there is no biological component or intrinsic aspect to orientation in this countly may be related to the uniquely American sense of “fairness”.

    Other countries don’t seem to think “fair” is as important as do we.

    And I think that some anti-gay activists are aware that if it is perceived that gay people are distinctly so (as opposed to environmentally formed or unchangeable) then Americans in general will believe it unfair to distringuish between them in law.

  2. Here’s the phrase that struck me: “to create a virtual image of himself”. I think “our” side of the pond is fixated on miracle cures and dramatic deliverance stories. To admit the TRUTH that (1) “we really only help people to live in accordance with their values”, (2) “sexual orientation hardly ever changes” and (3) “we don’t really know (and ultimately it may not matter) what causes sexual orientation — well, frankly, that kinda makes you yawn. Sparkly “virtual” images and “provocative” labels to attract media attention is more more American.

  3. There are church members/elders/pastors who can say that they have a homosexual orientation, and that they expect to live with that their whole life, but they choose to abandon homosexual relationships. Is my conception right that this approach is not very known among American evangelicals?

    I’d like to add that this approach is acknowledged among American evangelicals, but it is offered more in the spirit of a warning that “change” may not occur, as opposed to more promising messages of change as evidence by personal testimonies that inevitably mention weddings and children. The emphasis and the draw is clearly on the latter.

    The Catholic group Courage does not emphasize change, perhaps because celibacy has an honored place in the church. Whether that’s healthy or not, or whether those who practice celibacy have the necessary support and personal wherewithal to live a celibate, healthy life has been up for debate. As one who has been there however, I think that approach is at least much more honest.

  4. I absolutely think this observation is dead on. It rather baffles my why American evangelicals are so hung up on their notions of origins, notions which are clearly damaging to parents of gays and lesbians. I guess you could say I’m on a new mission here, but gays and lesbians are not by any means the only ones damaged by this rhetoric. Not by a long shot.

  5. I appreciate the candor and spirit in which this was written. It is no surprise to me that the Netherlands would adopt this perspective. They are one of the most egalitarian societies we know of, allowing for same-sex couples to have a number of rights not afforded to them here in the United States. What we find, is what we have known for quite some time…that the granting of rights for any minority comes with increased understanding and education.

    Even though I do not agree with the perspective that a person who is of a “homosexual orientation,” should lead a celibate life any more than someone of a “heterosexual orientation,” (they are not asexual, afterall, even though their object choice is of the same gender)…I do appreciate the author’s attempt at further understanding perspectives across the ocean.

    If only us Americans could reach out and talk more candidly to countries which are more egalitarian than our own to further our understanding.

    We certainly have much to learn.

Comments are closed.